2050 is probably the end of the world.

Codger said:
Hydrogen fuel cell technology will be widespread in the next 20 years. Bye bye gas engines. Water vapor exhaust fumes. Dinosaurs had zero technology. Bye bye dinosaurs. Solar technology will be very feasable in 10 years. Bye bye coal fired and hot nuke power plants. Computers will be so powerful that environmental monotoring and modeling will enable us to prepare for environmental disaster ahead of time. Bye bye tsunami disaster, no more Pompei's either. Weather control through programs like HAARP are already a reality. Laser technology will advance so far that the stuff you see on Star Trek will be old hat. Medical advances will astound you. You remember Gordy's visor? Lets the blind guy "see"? Nearly done now. There will be so many changes in YOUR lifetime that the human brain will be hard pressed to keep up. Born with a short leg? We can lengthen it now. Get your arm or wanker cut off? We can reattach it now, nerves included. Humans have always had the drive to survive in whatever environment they find themselves.

Simple enough? :laugh2:

Yeah. We still don't have enough $ to spent on those research.
 
Crazymanw00t said:
Yeah. We still don't have enough $ to spent on those research.


That is funny how you say " we don't have enough $ to spend on those research" when we spend millions to billions of dollars on a war. :roll:
 
No Money For Research

Wrong. Private companies see a huge profit to be made in emerging technology. That research has been going on for years. Some of the major developments have come from the space and military research programs. It is called transferable technology.
 
Cheri said:
That is funny how you say " we don't have enough $ to spend on those research" when we spend millions to billions of dollars on a war. :roll:
:werd: We will probably never advance much in technology and never find the cure to AIDS, cancer, and other diseases... if Bush keeps spending our money on things we can avoid. :roll:
 
Bush does not spend money. Clinton did not spend money. Congress spends money. The majority of health research comes from the private sector. Yes, sometimes government grants are handed out to fund research. I do not agree with our foriegn policy. Never have. But that don't change the facts.
 
Codger said:
Bush does not spend money. Clinton did not spend money. Congress spends money. The majority of health research comes from the private sector. Yes, sometimes government grants are handed out to fund research. I do not agree with our foriegn policy. Never have. But that don't change the facts.


But, Who wanted the war to begin with the first place? Bush. Thank you. :)
 
Cheri said:
But, Who wanted the war to begin with the first place? Bush. Thank you. :)

Presidents do not declare a war. Congress does. The preparations for the war predated Dubya's first term. Clinton made significant contributions. As did Bush Sr. And his predecessor, and his. Coke or pepsi, it is still soda pop. Democrat or Republican, they are still politicians.
 
Well, President Bush did push for the Iraq war. We all know that. But like Codger said, a president cannot declare a war without the congress' power.

Now, we all know that the CIA/FBI reports weren't what they claimed to in the first place. Heck, I don't think most people even read the reports to begin with. After all, most didn't read the Patriot Act.

A few months ago, they voted to reform the CIA from what I know. Hopefully, it'll be for the better.

(shrugs)
 
Yeah I know with the private company's $. They aren't stable investing $ on the research. We would like to have our government spent their $ on military so it will be very stable investing. It involved with many politc forgien policy with researchs, raw resources, and services to make it happen. Private Company can't really afford for all those thing to make it happen. It will take decades to make it happen if we use private CO.'s $. If we use our government's $ and it would make it less than 10 years to invent new technologies or ways.

Our thinking in this society will NOT make this Earth beautiful. Why? We are looking for "PROFITS with MONEY" than saving our Earth. We need to change that to save Earth and maybe profit some $. I hate to depend money for our life and on Earth.

We can't just point out to our president, congress, and FBI/CIA for war. We decided the war. Congress, and President had to depend on our feelings. Today's war was 50/50 so President and Congress went ahead with war. If everyone in USA disagree to go war with Iraqi then President and Congress will not declare war aganist Iraqi.
 
Crazymanw00t said:
We can't just point out to our president, congress, and FBI/CIA for war. We decided the war. Congress, and President had to depend on our feelings. Today's war was 50/50 so President and Congress went ahead with war. If everyone in USA disagree to go war with Iraqi then President and Congress will not declare war aganist Iraqi.


That is some bullshit line I ever heard, If everyone in the USA disagree to go with the war then President Bush wouldn't have said go ahead? Bush never asked us what we want. I did not vote for Bush for two years, And what make you think we all wanted the war? Bush is the one who annouced it and say "We are going to have a war" Did not even ask us to vote on it. Don't be silly.
 
Codger said:
Presidents do not declare a war. Congress does.

I did not say that President declare the war pay attention to my words I said Bush did start up with saying he wanted the war. Of course nothing is a go ahead without Congress approve just like changing the Constitution.
 
Crazymanw00t said:
We can't just point out to our president, congress, and FBI/CIA for war. We decided the war. Congress, and President had to depend on our feelings. Today's war was 50/50 so President and Congress went ahead with war. If everyone in USA disagree to go war with Iraqi then President and Congress will not declare war aganist Iraqi.

I find this hard to believe is because alot of American people do not want to see a war happening and they sure don't agree on having a war either, so it was more of what Bush wanted and push the Congress in agreeing to this too, so its the government who made that choice by seeking a war not the American people....

If I had to vote then my answer will be NO because I rather to have peace than war!
 
I think its really a question of balance and too many people on the planet for it to support. When 20% of the population consumes 80% of the planets resources it becomes a major problem. In the past a war would bring it somewhat back into balance, but now I think it has gotten out of control and we can't afford to have WWIII.
 
Yeah, I am saying that Congress can't do anything without our feelings or decision. If congress do other than with our decision then that congress won't be congress for next term. Other possilbe that the business or forgien brides congress for some votes. I am not going to be surprised with the brides situation.
 
I suppose Bush failed to see that rebuilding Iraq is more expensive than rebuilding America. I think all 50 states will love to have $1 billion dollars from the federal government. Instead we have to spend $50 billion or more a day in Iraq. If we have to keep the troops until 2007 that means the total will be $35,000 billion dollars! :(
 
Codger said:
Hydrogen fuel cell technology will be widespread in the next 20 years. Bye bye gas engines. Water vapor exhaust fumes. Dinosaurs had zero technology. Bye bye dinosaurs. Solar technology will be very feasable in 10 years. Bye bye coal fired and hot nuke power plants. Computers will be so powerful that environmental monotoring and modeling will enable us to prepare for environmental disaster ahead of time. Bye bye tsunami disaster, no more Pompei's either. Weather control through programs like HAARP are already a reality. Laser technology will advance so far that the stuff you see on Star Trek will be old hat. Medical advances will astound you. You remember Gordy's visor? Lets the blind guy "see"? Nearly done now. There will be so many changes in YOUR lifetime that the human brain will be hard pressed to keep up. Born with a short leg? We can lengthen it now. Get your arm or wanker cut off? We can reattach it now, nerves included. Humans have always had the drive to survive in whatever environment they find themselves.

Simple enough? :laugh2:

All in all, you are saying that what we know now will be old news when 50 years come around, we will know the stuff we don't know right now? Like 50 years ago, we don't know the stuff we know today. If we use it properly, by the year 2050, a catastrophe will not happen. Not only that but we will be converting what we use now, into something that do not contribute to global warming, pollution or the deteriotating of the environment? i.e. your example of converting gas engines into hydrogen fuel cells, which will mean 20 years later, we won't even touch oil anymore? We will have no use for oil anymore now that we are able to use water to power up our cars. There might be a cure for AIDs soon and like you said, stem cell research is making a breakthrough because my friend's mother had to get one of her teeth removed, then the dentist placed a tiny material inside her gum and one week later, she grew another tooth. Technology has changed, but not rapidly because it takes a while to adapt to the newfound materials/inventions. There are researches, test groups, release it to a control group and see if the audience like it, the pros and cons and then try to make it more mainstreamed by distributing it to the public and then work on it some more to see if it can be reduced in cost by changing some kind of material and on, just like what Japan is doing now with their technological devices. The cycle goes on and on and when the cycle continues, it get better by the end of the cycle and a new cycle begins, a new hypothesis is developed with the knowledge applied to it, and goes through the development stages till the end of the cycle. If we know more than we do now, it won't hurt us and it will indeed help us prevent and defend ourselves from anything that could cause harm.

Did I get that right? If not, please correct anything I made an error on.
 
Close PAF, but you are still thinking in a straight line. If you do not keep yourself up on the leading edge of technology DAILY, you will be lost in TEN years, not fifty. In my lifetime we have gone from a sliderule to portable computers. You will see comperable advances in the next ten years. Lead time from concept to production of materials and products is also compressed. I worked on the moulds and assembly process for the Avalanche truck grille a mere eight months before we were in full production. In that eight months, five running changes were made in the overall design, eight in the components, twelve in the paint processes, and more in the final assembly process.
 
Back
Top